Defendant
Lonnie Francis appeals from a September 21, 2006 order by the Orange District
Court holding him without bail pending a merits hearing on his alleged
violation of probation. We affirm.

Defendant
was convicted of sexual assault on a minor in 1998 and received a
one-to-eight-year sentence at that time; all but one year of the sentence was
suspended. Upon his release, defendant was put on probation, one condition of
which was that he participate in sex offender treatment. In 2002 defendant
admitted to violating his probation by viewing pornography on the internet and
received a sentence of 38 months to 8 years, all but 38 months of which was
suspended. At that time, additional conditions were imposed, including that
defendant would complete more comprehensive treatment for sexual aggressors,
would be required to be an active participant in his probation, and that he
would not Ainitiate or
maintain contact with minors under the age of 18 at any time without the supervision
of an adult approved by the Sex Offender Treatment Team.@

On
September 8, 2006, defendant=s
probation officer drove by defendant=s
home in the early morning and saw a young female standing in front of the
home. When asked, the female indicated that she was living in defendant=s trailer. The officer
discovered that morning that the female was defendant=s wife=s
granddaughter, and that she had been staying in the trailer for two nights.
The defendant was reportedly inside the trailer sleeping at the time of this
conversation. The officer cited defendant that day for a violation of
probation. Defendant was ordered to resume attending weekly sex offender
treatment meetings rather than the monthly meetings he had been attending since
June 2006.

Defendant
was directed, on September 13, 2006, to vacate his home and live with his
grandmother to avoid the risk of improper contact with minor children allowed
in the home by defendant=s
wife. On September 18, 2006, defendant=s
probation officer again observed that defendant was living in his wife=s home. Two days later,
defendant was suspended from sex offender treatment, as the provider of that
treatment found that his moving back into his wife=s home was counter to the provider=s clear directive and
indicated that he could not be relied on to protect the minor children in the community.
Defendant=s probation
officer also learned that defendant had visited his wife=s other daughter=s
home, where minor children were present, on two occasions in the summer of 2006
without supervision of an approved adult. Defendant was charged with violating
his probation by: (1) residing in his wife=s
home with minor children, (2) having unsupervised contact with minor children
at his wife=s daughter=s home, and (3) by being
suspended from sex offender treatment.

At a
Rule 5 hearing on September 21, 2006, defendant denied the violations. At that
hearing, the state argued that defendant, as a currently-untreated sex offender
with a prior violation of probation, should be held without bail until the
merits hearing. Defendant argued: (1) that his move back into his wife=s home was justified by her
illness and the necessity that he care for her and the home, (2) that any
contacts with children that occurred were de minimis, and (3) that there
were no children living in the home when defendant moved back in on September
18. The court found that, because of defendant=s
prior violation of probation and his disregard of express instructions from his
probation and treatment officers, he should be held without bail. This appeal
followed.

Rule
32.1(a)(3) of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for an appeal
for probationers held without bail under the terms set out in 13 V.S.A. '' 7554 & 7556. Section
7556(b) provides that any order denying bail to a probationer Ashall be affirmed if it is
supported by the proceedings below.@
The Legislature has also provided, in 28 V.S.A. '
301(4), that, while a court Amay
release the probationer pursuant to section 7554 of Title 13@ prior to the merits
hearing, there is Ano
right to bail or release@
during that time. In situations where there is no right to bail, we have held
that the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether to
grant bail, and must therefore make findings to indicate how that discretion
was exercised. State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 379 (1990).

Here, it
appears that the trial court applied the factors set out in 13 V.S.A. ' 7554 and determined that
defendant should be held without bail based on his failure to comply with the
express directions of his treatment officer and probation officer, and on the
fact that defendant had a prior violation of probation. These findings are
supported by the limited record before us, and provide sufficient support for
the order to hold defendant without bail pending the merits hearing.